Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile Chessforum

Jonathan Sarfati
Member since Sep-27-06 · Last seen Nov-29-23
F.M., Ph.D. (physical chemistry), New Zealand Champion 1988, author of six books and co-author of three more. See also bio

I was club captain of the Wellington Chess Club in New Zealand and Logan City Chess Club in Queensland, Australia for over a decade each.

I admire Capablanca and Karpov for the clarity and effectiveness of their styles.

I recognize only the lineal world champions as real ones, i.e. those who won their titles by winning a match with the incumbent where available, not the FIDE ones who won silly knock-out tournaments. This means Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen, and Ding.

I have a Morphy number of 4:

Morphy ? Mortimer ? Tartakover ? Najdorf ? me

since I played a drawn blitz game against Najdorf at the 1992 Olympiad, after he had beaten several others in succession. Full Member

   Jonathan Sarfati has kibitzed 2096 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Nov-30-23 Y Hou vs Karpov, 2010
Jonathan Sarfati: Yet another Karpov win with opposite-coloured Bishops.
   Aug-31-23 Svidler vs Carlsen, 2020
Jonathan Sarfati: Reminds me of a vital win by Magnus Carlsen himself four years previously Carlsen vs Karjakin, 2016
   Aug-31-23 Carlsen vs Karjakin, 2016
Jonathan Sarfati: See how Peter Svidler did something similar to Carlsen himself four years later: Svidler vs Carlsen, 2020
   Jul-20-23 J N Metge vs J Sarfati, 1982 (replies)
Jonathan Sarfati: Not a great game. Black would be fine with 12...♘xd5 13.♘xd5 exd5 14.♗xd5 (14.♕xd5 ♗e6 15.♕d3 d5 16.♗a2 ♕a5+) 14...♕a5+ 15.♘d2 ♕xb5. The artificial 12... ♘fd7 handed White a huge advantage (+3), but
   Jul-20-23 J Sarfati vs H B Williamson, 1981
Jonathan Sarfati: In the final position, Black has no good defence to 40.Rxc7 Nxc7 41.b6 queening a P.
   May-30-23 O Sarapu vs R J Sutton, 1965
Jonathan Sarfati: Looking at this game many years later with Stockfish 15 shows that Sarapu missed the chance for a quick opening crush. After missing that, Sutton was able to exploit his plus ♙ with good play. White has the slightest advantage after 6.♗g5 f6 7.♗e3 ...
   May-15-23 Sue Maroroa (replies)
Jonathan Sarfati: Tragic early death, leaving behind husband, very young daughter, and newborn son. has an informative obituary. Her self-description as Cookasian is apt, because she had a Cook Islander father and Chinese-Malaysian mother who gave her the middle name Yuchan.
   Apr-20-23 Bronstein vs Fischer, 1970 (replies)
Jonathan Sarfati: <Petrosianic:> I agree that it was unlikely to be 1 minute to 5 minutes. All the same, I am not sure about the reasoning. I am old enough to have played lots of games giving 1 minute to 5 minutes odds on analog clocks. I wonder instead if Alekhine meant money odds: ...
   Apr-19-23 Bogoljubov vs Botvinnik, 1936
Jonathan Sarfati: Alekhine in the tournament book was ‘annotating by result’. Alekhine criticized 9.b3 as completely spoiling White's position, and recommends 9.♗f4 instead. But Stockfish 15 prefers Bogo's choice. Better still was 9.d5 with a small plus. He criticized 10.♗e3 ...
   Apr-09-23 Gavin Marner
Jonathan Sarfati: This game list is not representative of Gavin Marner's play. He is a dangerous player with many good wins under his belt.
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: G'day <visayanbraindoctor>. Yes, I think these two games are good evidence against Watsonism–Larsenism / narcissistic generation syndrome, and there are many more. Same with the old Alekhine > peak Keres and old Keres > peak Larsen you point out, and we could add 48yo Capa ~ 25yo Botvinnik and 50yo Botvinnik > peak Larsen.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <visayanbraindoctor>, to reinforce that, Carlsen presumably had played through Capablanca's game at some time, while Capa had no predecessor to draw upon.
Oct-25-17  visayanbraindoctor: <Jonathan Sarfati> Capablanca had an uncanny ability to play novel openings (not variations but whole new opening STRUCTURES at the time the game was played) perfectly just as these openings were meant to be played positionally.


Sicilian Scheveningen

Lasker vs Capablanca, 1936

Modern Benoni

Capablanca vs Janowski, 1924

Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927

Capablanca vs Marshall, 1927

(I think the Modern Benoni should be renamed into the Capablanca-Marshall)

Benko Gambit

Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1914

Marshall Attack

Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918

Oct-25-17  visayanbraindoctor: <Jonathan Sarfati: <visayanbraindoctor>, to reinforce that, Carlsen presumably had played through Capablanca's game at some time, while Capa had no predecessor to draw upon.>

I know many kibitzers would rake me with flak but my gut feeling when following the games of current masters in the internet live is that Capablanca was definitely stronger than any of them. He had an unmatched ability for finding the best moves in critical positions, and at his best never committed a losing tactical error. He would be invincible in a match in any era in chess history. (Not to mention that with his extremely rapid play he would be the only player in history that I would give a more than 50% chance of winning the World Cup format every time he participated.) I've never seen anything like it.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <visayanbraindoctor> <whose brains are touted> In general, those who believe in the improvement of chess over history don't believe it comes from <brain physiology> but rather from <cultural development>.

What scientific studies there have been about chess seem to support the <chunking hypothesis>, which holds that chess mastery comes from having a big repertoire of chess patterns. This does not require an increase in brain capacity.

Here's a typical citation: Gobet, Fernand, and Herbert A. Simon. "Expert chess memory: Revisiting the chunking hypothesis." Memory 6.3 (1998): 225-255.

A quote from the abstract: "Masters in our new study used substantially larger chunks than the Master of the 1973 study..."

It could be that Capablanca had more, larger and better quality chunks than other masters of his time, but not necessarily of today's top players. I don't think it works to pick out an individual pair like Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918 versus Carlsen vs Bu Xiangzhi, 2017 to come to far-reaching conclusions; one would need a carefully defined methodology to compare as a whole the works of Capablanca, Carlsen, and their contemporaries.

As for the brain's physical ability to create and store these structures, I think that has existed since the dawn of history and supported these impressive feats of creating all our languages, sciences and culture, of which chess skill is one small part.

Nov-17-17  visayanbraindoctor: <beatgiant> Define <chunks> as related to chess?

There is a theory that short term memory works in <chunks>. Essentially that means that your limbic system stores short term memory best in chunks of up to four. (In contrast long term memory is localized in the cerebral hemispheres' cortices.) That's why you can memorize something like phone numbers more efficiently if you divide them into chunks of 3 or perhaps up to 4. Are these authors claiming that somehow this proves that a pre-WW2 master can't play middegames and endgames as well as a present day masters? That's like saying 1 + 1 = 2, and using it to prove that 2 + 2 = 5.

<"Masters in our new study used substantially larger chunks than the Master of the 1973 study>

The quote that you cite sounds speculative hypothesis at best. The ones generally accepted worldwide enter our textbooks and that citation has not. Or at the very least are known by your local Psychiatrists, Neurologists, or neurosurgeons. If any of such similar studies specifically pertaining to has been accepted by most people trained in various fields of the Neuro Sciences, I certainty would have read of it in our textbooks, or heard of it from other Neurosurgeons, some of whom (including my old master and mentor who always would invite me to play chess with him in his spare time after he found out I used to be a below 13 age bracket National Chess Champion of our country) include chess among in their favorite hobbies.

Frankly, I don't agree with it if what they are implying is that pre-WW2 masters can't play chess as well as present-day ones. I've seen enough games pre-WW2 and post-WW2 that are counter examples.

If you have studied both Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918 and Carlsen vs Bu Xiangzhi, 2017, and read the evidences I and <Jonathan> have posted in this site, and still believe that pre WW2 masters can't play middegame and endgames as well as present day ones, I would say that no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise that your thesis could be wrong. I am sorry to say that the simplest explanation why you are ignoring all the empirical data in front of you (and digging up more unclear speculations by the above authors) is that you have a bad case of the narcissistic generation syndrome yourself, and are acting like a die-hard Watsonian propagandist.

If you have been wondering why I haven't been discussing this topic with you anymore (except to correct more Watsonian propaganda if I come across it in other pages of this site for the sake of new kibitzers who are new to the topic), well... I don't quite have the time to repeat all the discussions about this topic with you in the Alekhine forum. I think you are an intelligent person, but the evidences I presented just flew past your head; not because you are unintelligent, but because of a bias that causes you to ignore clear empirical evidences.

Larsen was probably more intelligent than either one of us, yet was completely blinded by his own bias thanks to the narcissistic generation syndrome. How the heck could he say he would easily crush any 1920s master after: and

As for Watson, how could he claim pre WW2 Masters were inferior after getting crushed in Keres vs J L Watson, 1975

He actually insulted Keres' generation AFTER he already got crushed by Keres just when the old master was about to die of a heart attack a few months later. He was so blind that he did not realize that Keres began his career in the 1920s. That's how biases can affect judgment in quite respected and intelligent people.

Am I being judgemental of you? I guess I am, but I have already presented all the evidences needed again and again and you just keep on ignoring them. OK you'll shoot flak at me for saying out my mind, but seeing how you are still following me around after all the evidences I had presented in the AAA page, I believe this topic has become a kind of personal competition with you; and so IMO nothing else would work with you but the painful truth.

After saying the above, let me also say I admire your analyses in the various game pages of this site. You do good for the chess community with them. However, I do hope that someday you will realize you have the same blinders on that Watson and Larsen had.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <visayanbraindoctor> First, I just want to clarify one thing. My main point above was not just to take another shot in the age-old <masters of the past versus masters of today> debate.

Instead, my main point was: those who side with masters of today, don't do it based on <a brain theory of skill> but based on <a culture theory of skill>. Above, you said <brains are touted>, and I don't think that accurately represents anyone's position.

I'll respond to your other points briefly in a separate post later (again, not intending to reignite this debate on which we've both probably already made all our main points).

Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <visayanbraindoctor: <Jonathan Sarfati: <visayanbraindoctor>, to reinforce that, Carlsen presumably had played through Capablanca's game at some time, while Capa had no predecessor to draw upon.>>

Just saw your comment at Anand vs Carlsen, 2015 where it is clear that Carlsen does respect the old masters and studies their games, just as Fischer used to. A few years ago, he said that he admires Reuben Fine, "It strikes me that what he was doing in chess is similar to what I was doing." (cited in

It's no accident that Fischer and Carlsen are two of the greatest post-WW2 players, along with the two Ks.

Nov-19-17  visayanbraindoctor: <beatgiant> I reacted strongly because the the quote <Masters in our new study used substantially larger chunks than the Master of the 1973 study> looks utterly non-nonsensical to me, and seems to just throw rotten eggs at the the old masters.

It implies that present-day players have limbic systems that somehow can memorize short term memories of more than 4 chunks, while the old masters can only manage up to 4. What?! The limbic system of every human in history has been 'hard-wired' by genes by age 4. It's not as if humans born after WW2 have a different 'wiring'.

Perhaps these authors are saying that present-day masters have memorized more opening variations? If so, I agree. But that certainly does not mean that the old masters cannot memorize more variations too, if they happened to have been born more recently; as what the statement to seems to be implying.

What's the definition of this? <a culture theory of skill>

Nov-19-17  visayanbraindoctor: <Jonathan Sarfati> Yes, in fact of all top level masters, I believe that it is Carlsen that most often cites games from the old masters.

<It strikes me that what he was doing in chess is similar to what I was doing>

Fine was known as being a positional monster during his heydays, playing unpretentious openings but aggressive accurate and positionally sound middle games. Well, that's precisely what Carlsen is today.

I can see the similarities of their style and I understand Carlsen's admiration for Fine.

BTW I could never completely comprehend why Fine quit chess so early in his career. Why in the world would he refuse to play in the 1948 Candidates? It was a great loss for chess. I do not think that it was merely to continue with his Psychiatry career.

One possibility I have entertained is that he lost heart after his failure in US chess- failing to ever win the US Championship, and failing to surpass Reshevsky. Maybe he was thinking 'If I can't even be the top gun in my own country, what's the chance for me against the Soviets?'

Nov-19-17  visayanbraindoctor: Fine had a respectable score against the competitors in the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948)

Samuel Reshevsky beat Reuben Fine 5 to 1, with 14 draws, but before the event it was 4 to 1, and lots of draws.

Paul Keres beat Reuben Fine 3 to 1, with 8 draws, which is the best record against Fine, and it's not quite dominating.

Reuben Fine tied Max Euwe 2 to 2, with 3 draws, but before the event it was 3 to 2 for Fine.

Reuben Fine beat Mikhail Botvinnik 1 to 0, with 2 draws, so Fine had already proven that he could beat Botvinnik.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: There are a few likely reasons for Fine's dropping out.

One is the impossibility of making a living from chess in the USA of his day, and, related to this, the uselessness of the USCF. E.g. they didn't want FIDE to select the obvious Reshevsky and Fine for the world championship tournament, but wanted to pick the American reps.

Related to this was his career in psychoanalysis (really quite a farce overall, with his silly comments about chess and the Oedipus complex etc.). That was a reason he gave at the time, but decades later, he claimed that this was a Soviet fabrication. Fine was somewhat economical with the truth on a number of occasions.

Another major reason is that he lacked confidence in his play. During WW2, he had only inferior USA opposition for the most part, but the Soviets had improved by a lot. In those days, chess novelties travelled slowly. Pre-WW2, he outclassed the best players in the USSR apart from Botvinnik, e.g. Fine vs Lilienthal, 1937 and Levenfish vs Fine, 1937 But after the war, he lost rather easily to one of the second-string Soviets Boleslavsky vs Fine, 1945, against whom Botvinnik had an overwhelming plus score. And he always found Keres a hard opponent Keres vs Fine, 1946, while Botvinnik meanwhile had become stronger than Keres.

Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Jonathan Sarfati: There are a few likely reasons for Fine's dropping out.

One is the impossibility of making a living from chess in the USA of his day>

That would get my vote.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: You you just replace “Fine” with “Carlsen” everywhere in this account below, except for the last sentence:

“Fine was a formidable player with a solid and sound style that had been compared to Maroczy, Euwe or Karpov. Arnold Denker even went so far as to compare Fine's play to that of Fischer. Fine’s play was rarely flashy and he was always prepared to make a passive, unspectacular move just to bide his time. He was always confident that an opportunity to gain the advantage would inevitably arise because he always thought he was the better player.

“In his notes to one game Fine described his approach: My chief objective was always precision, wherever that would take me. When he needed to win, he didn’t take risks in order to avoid the draw and seek critical positions. Instead he simply intensified the accuracy of his positional play—and scored win after win with surprising persistence.

“Fine’s style of play won’t appeal very much to most players because his games often appear to be dry. But, in reality they often contain many subtle and fine points that make them a model for positional play. And, it was his positional understanding and technical ability that accounted for many of his victories. Fine was an all-around player as demonstrated by the many books he wrote on all aspects of the game: openings, the middlegame and endings.”

Nov-30-17  visayanbraindoctor: I agree. I admire Carlsen for his incredible accuracy and persistence, but I don't particularity find his games very interesting or creative.

For ex, the game below could well have been played by Carlsen. Fine grabs material, then just keeps on improving his position from a rather cramped start, and wins in the end playing accurately.

Fine vs Stahlberg, 1937

Notice how Fine keeps a sound pawn structure, fends off any possible offensive or tactic, and makes sure his pieces remain coordinated even if for a time many of them were in the back rank. Notice that both Fine and Carlsen seem comfortable playing with their pieces on their first rank, as long as they are coordinated. And they are both quite 'materialistic' and prefer sound pawn structures.

Dec-01-17  visayanbraindoctor: To be more specific, IMO Carlsen style tends to:

1. Set up a sound pawn structure. If possible set this up as a classic pawn-occupied center. If not, make sure it is sound anyway.

2. Maneuver pieces behind and around this sound pawn structure, always prepared to grab more space, and create and target opponent's weaknesses, exploit any situational development that can lead to an offensive. Sometimes this entails maneuvering around his first rank, but Carlsen isn't adverse to this.

3. Maintain accuracy at all costs.

His latest game

Carlsen vs Caruana, 2017

shows Carlsen doing this precisely. Note the sequence of moves

9. e4 cxd4 10. Nxd4 Bb7 11. Be3 Bc5

and White has advanced a pawn in the center e4 square and maneuvered his Dark Colored Bishop behind it, targeting Black's weak Queen-side Black pawns and squares.

Then what IMO is a typical Carlsenesque maneuver (complete with a creeping Queen move in the first rank)

12. f3 O-O 13. Qe1 Rc8 14. Qf2

applying more pressure on the Black Queen-side Black pawns and squares, and suddenly it's clear that White has a long term advantage with a strong center and space behind to engage in even more maneuvers. (I am almost sure that Carlsen may have missed a win somewhere in the endgame, but I don't have a chess program to verify this. To is credit Caruana also defended well.) I like the 12. f3 13. Qe1 14. Qf2 sequence.

Fine also seemed to have such a style. It's not flashy, and carried over for the whole of the middlgame and endgame looks dry to many kibitzers. Their moves are not unexpected, and there is hardly a moment for the onlooker (and probably for their opponents as well) of 'Wow! I did not see that coming'.

Carlsen fans will probably flake me for saying this, but IMO there are hardly any interesting twists or imaginatively and unexpectedly creative attacks. But I am not saying that it's wrong. On the contrary, Carlsen may have the most positionally 'correct' style of all World Champions.

Rather than dry I would call it 'swampy'. It's a style that is very difficult to play against. Their opponents must feel like they're drowning in the mud of a swampy morass.

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <vbd: On the contrary, Carlsen may have the most positionally 'correct' style of all World Champions.>

I think Carlsen's success has come from creating a style that is very effective against the current level of competition. I'm not sure what the style is, exactly, but less than rigorous openings, a middlegame style that is 60% aggressive and 40% solid, and an incredible ability to grind out wins in the endgame after a drawish looking middlegame that often comes due to a late game blunder by the opponent. I admire it, although I do understand why his detractors don't. I think Lasker is the closest predecessor in style to Carlsen, just a universalist who does what it takes to win. Perhaps Carlsen would evolve a new style if he needed to, but what he's doing now is working.

I don't see how you can compare players across generations(I think Capa and Alekhine would fare much better today, Alekhine with engine help is a frightening thought, than the average chess afficianado thinks),but if you had a Capa of 2017, I don't think Carlsen's style would work. Capa would play a faultless opening, maintain an advantage into the middlegame, and win or draw easily. An Alekhine of 2017 would blast some of the mediocre openings to pieces in less than 30 moves. A Karpov of 2017 wouldn't lose, ever, against a less than rigorous opening. I don't see any equivalent players of this generation who can challenge Carlsen. Aronian had a run, Caruana maybe a year's run, Kramnik still has something left, maybe So, but without demeaning them, I don't think they're an especially imposing bunch of opponents.

Dec-29-17  visayanbraindoctor: <OhioChessFan:(I think Capa and Alekhine would fare much better today, Alekhine with engine help is a frightening thought, than the average chess afficianado thinks),but if you had a Capa of 2017, I don't think Carlsen's style would work. Capa would play a faultless opening, maintain an advantage into the middlegame, and win or draw easily.>

I've already essentially said so in the past: I think Capablanca would be World Champion today had he been born in the 1980s to 90s. I follow live chess games of top GMs today in the internet (including Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik); and in my subjective view, they commit errors that IMO a prime Capablanca would never have done so. (For instance Capablanca during his unbeaten in 1916 to 1924 run would never have committed the errors Carlsen did in in Carlsen vs I Nepomniachtchi, 2017 or even in Carlsen vs Bu Xiangzhi, 2017 See my posts in those games.)

<An Alekhine of 2017 would blast some of the mediocre openings to pieces in less than 30 moves.>

AAA certainly had the ability to do so. Now there is an argument among some kibitzers that AAA could not do such a thing to modern top level GMs.

That's just plain false. There are dozens of games where he does this to top level masters. I've replayed enough of his games to know that if he gets a sound initiative from the opening (or middlegame) he is liable to blast any one off the board, even the strongest of masters. Ex 1: AAA shellacs a future USSR Champion and one whom Botvinnik couold not beat in their match Botvinnik - Levenfish (1937) right out of the opening, in the style of the classic 'immortal games' Alekhine vs Levenfish, 1912. Ex 2. AAA crushes Keres in a highly tactical double-edged middle game, seeing variations that Keres (one of the greatest tacticians of chess history) could not see Alekhine vs Keres, 1942

<A Karpov of 2017 wouldn't lose, ever, against a less than rigorous opening.>

Since I essentially grew up in the Karpov era, I have seen a LOT of his games, and I do agree. How the heck can you beat someone that plays like is in a match if you play only 'positionally' out of a <less than rigorous opening>? Karpov vs Gulko, 1996 (And this was already a has-been 1996 Karpov.)

<I don't see any equivalent players of this generation who can challenge Carlsen. Aronian had a run, Caruana maybe a year's run, Kramnik still has something left, maybe So, but without demeaning them, I don't think they're an especially imposing bunch of opponents.>

This is an important point. To make it more concrete, I will give a comparison.

Fils in general have nothing much to be proud of in the field of international competition (unless it's beauty contests of which we have won quite a lot recently thanks to a well established highly professional 'beauty' industry.) So when Pacquiao came along, nearly everyone here swooned over in joy.

I rarely watch boxing ever since operating on a boxer that got KO'd in a boxing bout in my residency days. But from what I have seen of his fights, Pacquiao seems to be one of the greatest fighters of his weight category.

Yet I also believe he was lucky. He arrived in an era wherein really great boxers in their prime were absent. My nationalistic countrymen will fry me for saying so, but IMO had Pacquiao been active in the time of Sugar Ray Robinson, or in the era of Sugar Ray Leonard/ Duran/ Hearns/ Hagler, then he would not have stood up head and shoulders above the pack. I think he would more likely have lost than won against them.

I know my views won't sit well with a lot of kibitzers (or my countrymen), but I have always tried to be unswayed by the pack in forming my opinions.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: Crosstables of every New Zealand Championship
Premium Chessgames Member

Good evening:

You have 22 pgn submissions in the system, but 7 of them have a type of notation that I fear will not be processed properly by <Olga>.

This is the notation in question: "�"

Did you keep a list of your current pgn submissions? If so, can you find a way to re-submit them without using the � notation?

Here are two of your submissions on queue- I am not at all certain that <Olga> will be able to properly read the � :


[Event "New Zealand Championship"]
[Site "Dunedin, New Zealand"]
[Date "1974.12.27"]
[EventDate "1974�75"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Garbett, Paul Anthony"]
[Black "Metge, J. Nigel"]
[ECO "C17"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.Bd2 Nc6 6.Nb5 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.Nf3 Ne7 10.Qxd4 Bd7 11.Bd3 Qa5+ 12.c3 Rc8 13.a4 b5 14.Qg4 g6 15.Qf4 h6 16.h4 bxa4 17.h5 g5 18.Qf6 Rg8 19.O-O Bb5 20.Bxb5+ Qxb5 21.Nd4 Qc4 22.f4 1-0


[Event "Queensland Champs"]
[Site "Brisbane, AUS]
[Date "2019.10.06"]
[EventDate "2019"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "McClymont, Brodie"]
[Black "Liu, Yi"]
[ECO "AC03"]
[WhiteElo "2332"]
[BlackElo "2247"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Be7 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bd3 c5 7.c3 Nc6 8.O-O g5 9.a3 h5 10.b4 cxd4? [10...g4 11.b5 Na5 12.Ne1 Qb6 ⩱] 11.cxd4 g4 12.b5! gxf3 13.bxc6 bxc6 14.Nxf3 � 14... c5 15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Bc2 Bd7 17.Nd4 Qa5 18.Bd2 Qa6 19.Bb4 Rc8 20.a4 [20.Qd2 ♗lack's ♔ can't find a safe place on either wing, so must press his luck in the centre] 20...Rg8 [20...Qc4] 21.Nb5 [21.Bd2] 21...Bxb5 22.axb5 Qxb5 23.Bd2 Qc4 [23...Rg4 to coordinate his major pieces] 24.Rxa7 d4 [24...Qg4 exchanging ♕s keeps ♗lacks disadvantage to a minimum ] 25.Bh7! Rh8 26.Qxh5! Walking into a pin, but ♗lack can't make use of this before White overpowers the ♖ 26...Nd7 27.Qh6 [27.Rxd7! Kxd7 28.Qxf7 Qc5 29.Bg5 Rhe8 30.h4 ♗lack can't untangle or find safety for his ♔, while White has lots of threats in the centre and with promoting his passed h-♙, e.g. 30...Qxe5 31.Bg6 Qd6 32.Rb1 Rb8 33.Rb7+! Rxb7 34.Qxe8+ Kc7 35.Bxe7+-] 27...Qe2 [27...Bf8 28.Qg5 Rxh7 29.Rc1 Qxc1+ 30.Bxc1 Rh5! 31.Qd2 Bb4 32.Qd1 Rxe5 33.Bd2 Bxd2 34.Qxd2 �] 28.Re1 Rxh7 29.Rxe2 Rxh6 30.Bxh6 d3 31.Re1 Bb4 32.Rd1 Nxe5 33.h3 Rc2?! 34.Ra8+! Kd7 35.Bf4 +- 35...d2 36.Bxe5 Rc1 37.Ra1 Ba3 38.Raxc1 1-0 ♘otes by J. Sarfati, with Stockfish 8.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <jessicafischerqueen:> G'day. I just saw your post. Thank you for letting me know. I have resubmitted those games.
Premium Chessgames Member

<Jonathan Sarfati>

The machine won't process them still.

I would try again but with these changes:


<1.> Instead of piece figure notation- type out letters only N,B,Q,K,R.


<2.> If you include a Date tag or an EventDate tag, it has to have all three time markers filled in. If you don't know the month or day, you need to type in "??"

Not this: [EventDate "2019"]

But rather this: [EventDate "2019.??.??"], or [EventDate "2019.09.??"], or [EventDate "2019.09.22"]


<3.> For annotations, instead of using plain parentheses [ ], use these ones: {}


<4.> Be sure to double check that your submission is not already in the database


Here is a sample game that will show my suggestions in the pgn. Just click "view" on this game and you will see the pgn. I would use it as an exemplar:

McDonnell vs La Bourdonnais, 1834

Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: I already changed the figurine back to letters in my resubmissions.
Premium Chessgames Member

<Jonathan Sarfati>

Ok of those games you submitted so far that did not get processed and published, re-submit them today and I will take a very close look at the pgns.

I am certain that we can get these games published.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Stonehenge: I also had a problem, with that Dive-Ker (or Ker-Dive) game.

Could you please upload it again?

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 9)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific user only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC